Judgment :- (V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and conviction rendered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge made in S.C.No.77 of 2004 dated 24.04.2009, convicting and sentencing the accused u/s. 498(A) and 302 I.P.C. and thereby directed to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, u/s. 302 I.P.C and to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment u/s. 498(A) I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution would be that the accused Raja married the deceased Kalaiselvi about 2½ years prior to her death and both of them lived together as husband and wife at Sendamangalam along with the parents of the accused Raja. The accused had suspected her fidelity and had committed cruelty on her. The said deceased Kalaiselvi had gone to her parents at Chinnamudalaipatti one month prior to her death and was living there. 3. On 09.06.2004, at about 03.30 a.m due to the grudge over the deceased Kalaiselvi, on her refusal to return to the matrimonial house the accused with an intent to murder her, took a saree kept near their bed at the residence of the parents of Kalaiselvi and twisted the same around her neck and caused her death by strangulation and thereby committed the crime of murder. 4. The complaint was given by the mother on 09.06.2004 on the same day and the case was registered in Cr.No.1000/2004 and the F.I.R was sent to the court on that day and it reached the court by 00.35 a.m on 10.06.2004, in the meanwhile the Deputy Superintendent of Police, being the Investigating Officer had proceeded with the investigation of the case and prepared the Observation Mahazar- Ex.P.10 and the sketch Ex.P.15 and in the presence of Panchayatars had conducted inquest and thereafter sent the body of deceased Kalaiselvi to Government hospital for autopsy. She had examined the witnesses and recorded their statement and she had arrested the accused on 12.06.2004 and had recorded the confession statement of the accused in the presence of the witnesses and seized M.O.3 - Saree through the confession leading to recovery and prepared Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.12. She had examined the witnesses and recorded their statement and she had arrested the accused on 12.06.2004 and had recorded the confession statement of the accused in the presence of the witnesses and seized M.O.3 - Saree through the confession leading to recovery and prepared Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.12. Thereafter the Investigating Officer sent the accused to judicial custody and subsequently recorded the statement of the witnesses and examined Doctor who had conducted autopsy and collected the Post Mortem Certificate and obtained chemical analysis report from Forensic lab and examined the analyst and thereafter she handed over the investigation to the incoming Investigating Officer, who had verified everything and recorded further statement and laid the charge sheet against the accused u/s. 498(A) and 302 I.P.C against the accused. 5. On the basis of the charge sheet filed against the accused, the case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Namakkal and he has committed the same to the Sessions Court and it was taken on file by the Sessions Judge and he has framed the necessary charges against the accused on 22.02.2005 u/s. 498 (A) & 302 I.P.C. 6. Based upon the charges framed against the accused the trial was conducted by the lower court by examining prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.19 and had admitted the documents on the side of prosecution Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 and M.Os.1 to 6. The accused was examined by the lower court u/s. 313 Cr.P.C in respect of important and incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and had recorded the answers furnished by the accused. The accused while denying such evidence as false had replied that he had got defence witness, and his sister Mrs. Vijayalakshmi was examined accordingly as D.W.1 to disprove the case of the prosecution. 7. The lower court after appraising the evidence had come to the conclusion of convicting and sentencing the accused u/s. 498(A) and 302 I.P.C and had imposed one year rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, respectively. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence the appellant/accused had preferred the present appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.R.Chandramohan would submit in his argument that the learned Sessions Judge had erroneously held that the accused was guilty of both offences. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence the appellant/accused had preferred the present appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.R.Chandramohan would submit in his argument that the learned Sessions Judge had erroneously held that the accused was guilty of both offences. He would further submit that the lower court erred in not finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The lower court ought to have found that the cause of death of deceased was not due to murder, for the reason that the hyoid bone was intact and there was no mark around the neck of the deceased which would give the probability that the deceased might have been died by hanging herself. He would also submit in his argument that the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the Post Mortem did not speak to the effect that the death was caused by strangulation by hands or sarre and in such circumstances the benefit of doubt should have been awarded to the appellant. He would further submit that the lower court did not explain as to the nature of injury for the purpose of deciding the case as to whether it was a suicide by hanging or death by strangulation. He would insist in his argument that there was no eye witness available for the occurrence, and the circumstantial evidence are not adequate to end in conviction, therefore certainly there should be an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt to the accused. He would further submit that the evidence of D.W.1 to the effect that the appellant was present at her house during the relevant time, would falsify the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that the evidence of D.W.1 that the accused was staying at the house of D.W.1 at Rasipuram two days prior to the date of death of the deceased and he was taken by the police and the case was foisted against him by converting the case of suicide by hanging to a case of murder by strangulation. The general statement by the witness as to the relationship between the appellant and deceased and the alleged cruelty committed by the appellant against the deceased were wrongly accepted by the lower court but those witnesses are interested witnesses. The general statement by the witness as to the relationship between the appellant and deceased and the alleged cruelty committed by the appellant against the deceased were wrongly accepted by the lower court but those witnesses are interested witnesses. He would further submit that the prosecution has also not proved the motive for the alleged offence committed. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 should not have been relied upon by the lower court as they happened to be very close relatives to the deceased. He would also insist in his argument that the delay in giving the complaint was not accepted by the lower court but it had ended the case with the conviction. He would therefore request the court to set aside the judgment passed by the lower court and thereby to acquit the accused from the charges framed against him u/s.498(A) and 302 I.P.C. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted his arguments. On giving anxious considerations to the arguments advanced by both sides, we have to see as to whether the judgment and conviction and sentence passed by the lower court against the appellant/accused u/s. 498(A) and 302 I.P.C is sustainable. 11. The accused was married to the deceased Kalaiselvi some five months prior to the date of her death on 09.06.2004, they were living at the house of the accused for sometime and one month prior to the death of Kalaiselvi she had come to her mothers house at Chinnamudalaipatti and was living there. P.W.1 was the mother of Kalaiselvi, who had spoken to the effect that immediately after the marriage of the deceased Kalaiselvi with the accused, she was living happily and thereafter the accused used to go in an inebriated condition and quarrelled with her on suspecting her fidelity. Her mother used to convince Kalaiselvi and ask her to live with her husband at matrimonial house. However the said Kalaiselvi had to return to her house by saying that he would kill her, if she go over and live with him. She left her daughter Kalaiselvi at her sister P.W.6s house. Her mother used to convince Kalaiselvi and ask her to live with her husband at matrimonial house. However the said Kalaiselvi had to return to her house by saying that he would kill her, if she go over and live with him. She left her daughter Kalaiselvi at her sister P.W.6s house. On 08.06.2004, the accused had come to the house of her sister near Murugan temple at Salem road and took the deceased Kalaiselvi in his TVS 50 vehicle and P.W.1 came opposite to them at about 06.00 p.m on the same day the mother of P.W.1 was also with her and the deceased Kalaiselvi told P.W.1 that they were going for a film and she wanted a ring for her mother and accordingly P.W.2 had given the ring and they thought that they would begin the new lease of life thereafter the cinema was over and they returned to the house of P.W.1 and she prepared food for them and they had the dinner and in the room situated on the western side of the house. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were having their bed. In the eastern room the accused and Kalaiselvi were having their bed at about 03.00 a.m during that night, P.W.1 heard some voice calling her and she went and knocked at the door, where the deceased Kalaiselvi and the accused were staying and since there was silence she went and continued sleeping. When she woke up by 06.00 clock in the morning P.W.1 sprayed cow dung water in front of her house and she returned back. She could not see the TVS 50 vehicle and also the accused and she could also see that the door of the eastern room was removed and was found open and the deceased Kalaiselvi was on her bed with opened mouth and on verification she was found dead. Immediately she (P.W.1) called P.W.2 and the neighbours. She approached the police and gave complaint which is recorded and produced as Ex.P.1. The said version of P.W.1 mother of the deceased Kalaiselvi was corroborated by P.W.2 grandmother of Kalaiselvi and other evidence namely P.W.5 and P.W.6 would also go a long way to show that the accused had come to their house and stayed with the deceased Kalaiselvi on the fateful night. 12. The said version of P.W.1 mother of the deceased Kalaiselvi was corroborated by P.W.2 grandmother of Kalaiselvi and other evidence namely P.W.5 and P.W.6 would also go a long way to show that the accused had come to their house and stayed with the deceased Kalaiselvi on the fateful night. 12. According to the case of the accused, he was not available at the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the accused was falsely implicated in the case. For that, learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon the evidence of D.W.1-sister of the accused. It has also been argued that the death of Kalaiselvi was only a suicide and it is not the case of murder by strangulation. Therefore the accused is said to be a innocent person. Now we have to see whether the version of the accused could be accepted. 13. There is no doubt that the complaint given by P.W.1 was registered and the police had come to the spot and had collected the evidence. Observation Mahazar would come to show that at the time of occurrence inquest was conducted by the Investigating Officer and it was produced as Ex.P.16. The accused was arrested and the confession statement recorded by the Investigating Officer and the admissible portion of the confession statement was produced as Ex.P.11 and M.O.3- Saree was recovered through Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.12. The witness who was present at the time of recording confession statement and the Seizure Mahazar was examined as P.W.14. The evidence of P.W.14 would clearly prove the recovery of M.O.3 – Saree which was used to strangulate the deceased Kalaiselvi through the confession of accused leading to its recovery. Nothing shown to reject the evidence of P.W.14. P.W.14 was working as V.A.O at the time of his examination. Therefore the evidence of P.W.14 cannot be rejected. The autopsy conducted by the Doctor- P.W.10 would go to show that he had conducted the autopsy on the body of Kalaiselvi and he produced the Post Mortem Certificate- Ex.P.5. According to the evidence of P.W.10 the death of kalaiselvi was caused due to vago vagal attack due to strangulation on her neck. He would again explain in his evidence that the death of Kalaiselvi would have been caused due to the constriction of the arteries and veins in the neck and due to shock. According to the evidence of P.W.10 the death of kalaiselvi was caused due to vago vagal attack due to strangulation on her neck. He would again explain in his evidence that the death of Kalaiselvi would have been caused due to the constriction of the arteries and veins in the neck and due to shock. In his evidence it has been categorically elicited that the death was caused due to the strangulation of neck and it is possible that the strangulation could be caused by M.O.3. 14. He has ruled out that the death would have been caused through commission of suicide. Therefore the death of Kalaiselvi at the house of P.W.1 should have been caused by strangulation of her neck by some other person than herself and not by suicide. 15. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, they are the close relative witness of the deceased Kalaiselvi and they are aged persons they are very much concerned in welfare of the deceased Kalaiselvi. Whether their evidence to the effect that the deceased Kalaiselvi and appellant/accused were sleeping at the eastern room belonging to the house of P.W.1 on the fateful night are reliable has to be decided. 16. Merely because P.W.1 and 2 are the relative and interested witnesses, it cannot be said that their evidence should have been rejected. The saree which was used for strangulating the deceased Kalaiselvi was recovered only on the confession leading to the recovery from the mouth of the accused. The evidence of P.W.14 proving the confession and Seizure Mahazar of the said saree used for strangulation cannot be challenged. 17. In such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.5 would come to show that on 08.06.2004 at about 05.00 p.m the appellant had come to her house and took the deceased Kalaiselvi, left by her mother at her residence. He would also speak that he promised not to drink or harass the deceased Kalaiselvi and went to the house of P.W.1 with Kalaiselvi in his TVS 50. The evidence of P.W.6, namely the sister of P.W.1 where Kalaiselvi was left for her stay for sometime, had also corroborated the evidence of P.W.5. In such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 are strengthened with the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6. The evidence of P.W.5 and 6 would also go to show that they had lastly seen Kalaiselvi with the appellant/accused. 18. In such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 are strengthened with the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6. The evidence of P.W.5 and 6 would also go to show that they had lastly seen Kalaiselvi with the appellant/accused. 18. The evidence of P.W.1 was further supported by the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 in lastly seeing Kalaiselvi with appellant staying at the eastern room of their house during the fateful night and therefore the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be rejected. 19. When the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6 are reliable the defence evidence adduced by D.W.1 that the accused was at her house two days prior to the date of death of Kalaiselvi cannot be a true version. D.W.1 did not say any specific date, but she had mentioned the date of death of Kalaiselvi and had spoken to the dates of stay. Therefore the evidence of D.W.1 is not at all reliable evidence and it should have been adduced falsely for the purpose of the helping the case of the defence. Therefore the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution to the effect that the accused and the deceased Kalaiselvi were seen at the room lastly before the death of Kalaiselvi, has proved the prosecutions case beyond reasonable doubt. It is the appellant who had lastly stayed with the deceased Kalaiselvi to explain the casue death of his wife. It has been categorically spoken by the prosecution witnesses that the accused was having the habit of consuming liquor and was harassing his wife the deceased Kalaiselvi. In such circumstances, the death of Kalaiselvi through strangulation on her neck by M.O.3, should have been caused by the accused only and by none else. Therefore the finding of the lower court that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt cannot be interfered. However it was brought to the notice that there was no specific evidence to the effect that the accused had demanded dowry and caused cruelty against the deceased Kalaiselvi and therefore the conviction u/s.498(A) cannot be sustained. Even though the conviction against 498(A) is unsustainable, the conviction and sentence passed against the accused u/s. 302 I.P.C is unassailable and therefore the judgment of the lower court in respect of 302 I.P.C is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 20. Even though the conviction against 498(A) is unsustainable, the conviction and sentence passed against the accused u/s. 302 I.P.C is unassailable and therefore the judgment of the lower court in respect of 302 I.P.C is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 20. Accordingly the conviction and sentence passed against the accused u/s. 498(A) is set aside and the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court in respect of 302 I.P.C is confirmed and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.